Talk:Mitchell Torok

Death
Information is extremely hard to come by, but there is a post in this discussion section that simply states "Mitchell Torok passed away in 2017". Not reliably referenced, of course, but it accords with other information in our article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC) PS: I should have looked at the article edit history. These edits - removed as unsourced, quite rightly - state that he died on November 16, 2017, in Alvin, Texas. That seems plausible, but not definitive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PPS: And, at User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-11, these comments from the new editor who added the death information:

Edits to Mitchell Torok. rwaustin2 Rwaustin2 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2017. (UTC) Yes, you reversed all my edits on Mitchell toroks's entry into wikipedia. Thia ia Mr. Torok's family and I'd like them reinstated. Rwaustin2 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rwaustin2 - Your edits to the article were completely unreferenced and in violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Wikipedia's article content must always reflect verifiability and neutrality; your claims of being related to the article subject are irrelevant (in fact, it puts Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines into play if anything). Please review the policies and guidelines I've linked you to here, and let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate your understanding and your compliance. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm his son in law, married to his daughter. And simply tried to update the page as I know he would have wanted it updated. You guys can leave it as is. Rwaustin2 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I can understand why did that, but it could have been handled more sensitively given that WP:AGF should have applied, and the other editor was apparently a close relative dealing with a death that occurred the previous day.   I am very tempted, in these circumstances, to add the death date into the article, with a suitable tag.  What do others think?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another PS: The relationship between Mitchell Torok and Ricci Austin, apparently the informant, seems to be confirmed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle - I appreciate the ping and I appreciate you for providing your input and thoughts regarding that discussion on my user talk page, but I think we need to understand what the assumption of good faith is, and what it isn't. First of all, let me make myself clear: I absolutely, without a doubt, do my upmost best to be positive, helpful, encouraging, and understanding of Wikipedia's new users, and I will always give them the benefit of the doubt if I don't have a compelling reason that clearly demonstrates that I shouldn't. However, when it comes to biographies of living persons (or articles of "questionable BLPs"?), we have to stand on a more level and reserved ground. I cannot just add information like that to the article (or, really, any article if it's not referenced...) simply because someone, using a brand new Wikipedia account and claiming to be the article subject's son-in-law, said that it was true.


 * Politely but assertively telling a user that unreferenced information cannot be added to the article, and with an explanation as to the reason why, and with references to all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines provided - has nothing to do with the assumption of good faith, or how "sensitive" I am (which I apparently wasn't?) What would you have me do instead? Teach the new editor the wrong thing by telling them to go ahead and add unreferenced content to the article? Assuming good faith does not mean that we should blindly believe that someone is who they claim to be, and hence their information is true and OK. We encourage everyone to assume good faith when it comes to other editors and their intentions, but don't be naive...


 * The "assumption of good faith" principle plays directly with this situation by how you behave and interact with other editors despite their questionable or even objectionable actions, behaviors, or edits that, collectively, would likely be interpreted by other editors as malicious or bad-faith intentions. Responding to the user in a kind, welcoming, and collaborative way, and pointing the user toward relevant policies (as well as the voluntary response team, if necessary), and assisting them with any questions that they have - this is the right thing to do. If one were to blatantly ignore or behave in direct conflict of that principle, I would've instead responded to their message and called the user a liar, that their information is obviously false, and then follow-up with a statement about how I'm "not going to let them 'degrade' the article with their changes"...


 * I hope that this response has added some clarity in regards to how we assume good faith, as well as clarify what decisions and responses have nothing to do with it whatsoever.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comprehensive response. All I meant to say - and you may have misinterpreted it to some extent - is that you may have come across as being overly ungracious to a new user, unaware of our policies, who claimed to have been recently bereaved, when you used words like "Your edits to the article were completely unreferenced and in violation of Wikipedia's policies...  your claims of being related to the article subject are irrelevant...".  You may have been technically correct, but I think used somewhat insensitive phrasing in the (apparent) circumstances, and in hindsight it might have been better to have been a tad less assertive.  Anyway... more relevantly to this page, do you have a view on whether or not Rwaustin2's edits back in 2017 can now be accepted in the article, given the subsequent uncertainty over their father-in-law's death date?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi both, I'm the user who recently moved his bio to a deceased category, after find his brother's obit that mentions his passing (which falls under WP:RS). I did spot the 2017 edits with the full date/place/cause of death, and I believe them to be accurate. HOWEVER, I am not a fan of adding notes with unconfirmed information in articles... though on rare occasions I leave them be as the truth/accuracy is more important than guidelines (IMO). Before we wander down the path of adding unconfirmed notes, or requesting a death certificate from the registrar's office, can I suggest one avenue we explore first? I'd like to reach out to the Alvin Sun, his local paper that covered him on several occasions in his later years (incl. one that I've cited on the page). I will try and request that they write a retrospective on his life, and cover the information on his passing, whilst stressing in my email the importance in them doing so. If they oblige, that will provide us with an RS, and the rest of this conversation becomes redundant. If I get no response by email, I'll try and call them. If there's anything anyone would like to add before I contact them, please say so now. I will ping them an email at the the weekend. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, did you get a response on this? --Jkaharper (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No response so far - they may not go on Facebook very often, so I will wait rather than pursuing them further myself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - I assume you did not get a reply from the Alvin Sun?  It would be good to try to resolve this one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * – Couldn't get in touch. Their website is Euro blocked. --Jkaharper (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just now sent them a message via Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/TheAlvinSunAdvertiser Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: I've just noticed that Allmusic now gives a death date (the same one discussed previously). In my view that satisfies our requirements - Allmusic is generally regarded as reliable. Thoughts?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PPS: "Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Believe we should take that as reliably sourced. Sorry this had to happen the way it did.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  16:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)